On June 1, I received the 'Official,' unsigned, two page email (i.e. written doc) of the 'Oral Reasons for Judgment' to my Summary Trial, held in Chambers this past February 12, 2016.
HERE IT IS:
Steen v. British Columbia (Justice) ............(Page 2)
[1] THE COURT: I will give you my decision now. In doing so, I reserve the right
to make editorial revisions to my reasons before their reproduction in final form. In
no manner will the results of my decision be changed.
[2] I have before me a notice of application that was filed on 3 November 2015, by the plaintiff, Mr. Steen. It was set down for hearing by a requisition he filed on 17 November 2015.
[3] The defendant’s office was not served with the plaintiff’s materials; however, they became aware of the application and they have filed a response. That response was filed on 11 February 2016, yesterday.
[4] When I read Mr. Steen’s notice of application in advance of this hearing, the nature of the application and the legal basis for the relief he is seeking remained unclear to me. After having heard Mr. Steen, it appears he wishes to have his claim against the defendant, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia, determined by way of summary trial. Moreover, the principal relief he appears to seek is an award $125,000 in general damages for “financial losses, legal costs and representation, time and life consumed, general emotional suffering and duress, as well, loss of his good name within his communities, both at home and online”.
[5] In response to Mr. Steen’s application, the defendant says Mr. Steen’s action discloses no reasonable claim and is an abuse of the court's process. Consequently, the defendant seeks an order pursuant to Rule 9-5(1)(a) and (d) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules striking out Mr. Steen's notice of civil claim and dismissing his action.
[2] I have before me a notice of application that was filed on 3 November 2015, by the plaintiff, Mr. Steen. It was set down for hearing by a requisition he filed on 17 November 2015.
[3] The defendant’s office was not served with the plaintiff’s materials; however, they became aware of the application and they have filed a response. That response was filed on 11 February 2016, yesterday.
[4] When I read Mr. Steen’s notice of application in advance of this hearing, the nature of the application and the legal basis for the relief he is seeking remained unclear to me. After having heard Mr. Steen, it appears he wishes to have his claim against the defendant, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia, determined by way of summary trial. Moreover, the principal relief he appears to seek is an award $125,000 in general damages for “financial losses, legal costs and representation, time and life consumed, general emotional suffering and duress, as well, loss of his good name within his communities, both at home and online”.
[5] In response to Mr. Steen’s application, the defendant says Mr. Steen’s action discloses no reasonable claim and is an abuse of the court's process. Consequently, the defendant seeks an order pursuant to Rule 9-5(1)(a) and (d) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules striking out Mr. Steen's notice of civil claim and dismissing his action.
"[6] As best I can determine, having read the notice of civil claim a number of
times, and having heard Mr. Steen’s submissions, he alleges a Provincial Court
judge erred when, in May of 2010, she dismissed his original Small Claims action
against an Ontario corporate defendant. Specifically, Mr. Steen contends that the judge erred when she advised him that he should sue the corporate defendant in
Ontario and when she advised him to appeal her decision dismissing his action.
[7] Mr. Steen asserts he followed the judge’s flawed advice and that in doing so
he incurred significant costs and expenses. This is the foundation of his claim for
damages against the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia. It
remains unexplained how he reached the actual sum of $125,000 in damages."
[8] Mr. Steen appealed the Provincial Court judge's decision dismissing his
original action. That appeal came before Madam Justice Dardi of this court in August
of 2010. Because the respondent had served its material late, Mr. Steen requested
and was granted an adjournment of the hearing so that he could properly respond to
the issues being raised by the respondent. For reasons that are not clear to me,
Mr. Steen did not pursue his appeal. Instead, he chose to abandon it. He then pursued a lawsuit against the same corporate defendant in Ontario. That legal action, it would appear, was unsuccessful. Mr. Steen has now turned his attention back to British Columbia and seeks relief from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for what he says are the errors the Provincial Court judge made in his original action.
[9] I have read the transcript of the proceedings in Provincial Court, as well as the judge’s reasons for judgment. I do not agree with Mr. Steen when he says the judge provided him with erroneous legal advice. In my view, the judge found Mr. Steen had filed his action in the incorrect registry and as such he had not complied with the Small Claims Rules. In the result, she dismissed his claim, concluding the Provincial Court of British Columbia did not have jurisdiction to hear it. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the judge explained to Mr. Steen:
"If you wish to appeal my decision, then you’re certainly welcome to do that, but I can't tell you how to do that."
[10] In my opinion, the judge was not giving Mr. Steen legal advice, nor was she telling him what he should do.
Mr. Steen did not pursue his appeal. Instead, he chose to abandon it. He then pursued a lawsuit against the same corporate defendant in Ontario. That legal action, it would appear, was unsuccessful. Mr. Steen has now turned his attention back to British Columbia and seeks relief from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for what he says are the errors the Provincial Court judge made in his original action.
[9] I have read the transcript of the proceedings in Provincial Court, as well as the judge’s reasons for judgment. I do not agree with Mr. Steen when he says the judge provided him with erroneous legal advice. In my view, the judge found Mr. Steen had filed his action in the incorrect registry and as such he had not complied with the Small Claims Rules. In the result, she dismissed his claim, concluding the Provincial Court of British Columbia did not have jurisdiction to hear it. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the judge explained to Mr. Steen:
"If you wish to appeal my decision, then you’re certainly welcome to do that, but I can't tell you how to do that."
[10] In my opinion, the judge was not giving Mr. Steen legal advice, nor was she telling him what he should do.
[11] Mr. Steen did appeal from the Provincial Court judge’s decision, but as I have
already noted, he abandoned that appeal. That occurred about six years ago. While
my function today is not that of an appellate court, I will note that the time for
determining whether the Provincial Court judge erred when she rendered her
decision in May 2010 has long since passed.
[12] I understand that Mr. Steen may be frustrated and disillusioned with his attempts to pursue his original civil claim against the corporate defendant. He initiated that claim in British Columbia, but it was dismissed because the court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. His subsequent attempt to pursue the claim in Ontario was also unsuccessful. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is I can find nothing in the notice of civil claim that is before me that sets out any foundation, legal or otherwise, that justifies or could support the claims Mr. Steen is making against the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia. In my opinion, the notice of civil claim discloses no reasonable claim and to allow it to proceed would amount to an abuse of the court’s process.
[13] For all of these reasons, I am ordering, pursuant to Rule 9-5(1), that Mr. Steen’s notice of civil claim be struck out and that his action be dismissed.
=====================================================================
Above is essentially an overview of where I have been and what I fruitlessly pursued over these many years, with several erroneous filing errors attributed to myself in [2 + 3]. I mentioned in a former post, how it 'appears' clear to me, there are serious administrative discrepancies within the communication channels of the Registry at ground level, and the Higher Powers of the Ministry of 'JUSTICE' ' in its halo chambers above.
All leaves the reader with a sense this old man has been wasting the court's precious time and facilities, without having had a leg to stand on. No references to any facts, nor details required, as is prescribed by law:
[No.5] "In response to Mr. Steen's application, the defendant says Mr. Steen's action discloses no reasonable claim and is an abuse of the court's process. Consequently the defendant seeks an order pursuant to Rule 9-5(1) (a) and (d) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules striking out Mr. Steen's notice of civil claim and dismissing his action."
In Para [9] :..." the judge found Mr. Steen had filed his action in the incorrect registry and as such he had not complied with the Small Claims Rules."
"the judge found"..... Not, 'Let's have a scrutinizing look at the Rules for filing a claim in BC. ' NOT, 'I noted with interest in your Affidavit materials your Exhibit in which the very office of the AG took a man to court (after some 12 year lapse), using the very 'B' (or) Rule for filing (as you had used) and WON!
Again, and I repeat (as I see it): This is NOT about Justice; it is about keeping SRL riffraff, like myself and hundreds of thousands of other upright CANADIAN CITIZENS - looking for ACTUAL justice, as applied by the very Rules that are in place (wanting as they are) - OUT of the system.
GOD forbid we give these diehards even a modicum of acknowledgment. Since daring to question the System for all its inherent discrepant allowances is:
May they - the most upright noble and honourable, forever impartial and thoroughly just lords and ladies of our higher and SUPREME COURT of this exemplary democratic land - sleep and rest in their conscionable peace!
"S. R. L. E.J.Steen."
"When reviewing a case, the Court of Appeal looks at whether the decision-maker made a mistake in understanding the facts of the case or interpreting the law. The mistake must be obvious and fail to consider relevant evidence.
Furthermore, that mistake must have had such a significant effect on the outcome of the case that it led to the incorrect decision being made.
Because the appeal court does not hear evidence from witnesses, it is very difficult for the appellant to convince the appeal judges that the previous decision-maker reached the wrong conclusion about the facts of the case."
An Appeal is heard by THREE JUDGES!
So, in this, my very last stand, I will seek to discover whether these THREE, DIFFERING, and purportedly IMPARTIAL, seasoned individuals, presently representing a more LIBERAL and JUST government, upon interpreting the laws as defined - which they should be thoroughly and intimately familiar with - will these THREE MOST HONOURABLE SOULS side with the Rules of Law, or reiterate diplomatic gobbledygook rhetoric to side with their legal counterpart, the most honourable BROTHER justice Gaul?
[12] I understand that Mr. Steen may be frustrated and disillusioned with his attempts to pursue his original civil claim against the corporate defendant. He initiated that claim in British Columbia, but it was dismissed because the court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. His subsequent attempt to pursue the claim in Ontario was also unsuccessful. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is I can find nothing in the notice of civil claim that is before me that sets out any foundation, legal or otherwise, that justifies or could support the claims Mr. Steen is making against the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia. In my opinion, the notice of civil claim discloses no reasonable claim and to allow it to proceed would amount to an abuse of the court’s process.
[13] For all of these reasons, I am ordering, pursuant to Rule 9-5(1), that Mr. Steen’s notice of civil claim be struck out and that his action be dismissed.
“G. R. J. Gaul J.”
Above is essentially an overview of where I have been and what I fruitlessly pursued over these many years, with several erroneous filing errors attributed to myself in [2 + 3]. I mentioned in a former post, how it 'appears' clear to me, there are serious administrative discrepancies within the communication channels of the Registry at ground level, and the Higher Powers of the Ministry of 'JUSTICE' ' in its halo chambers above.
All leaves the reader with a sense this old man has been wasting the court's precious time and facilities, without having had a leg to stand on. No references to any facts, nor details required, as is prescribed by law:
[No.5] "In response to Mr. Steen's application, the defendant says Mr. Steen's action discloses no reasonable claim and is an abuse of the court's process. Consequently the defendant seeks an order pursuant to Rule 9-5(1) (a) and (d) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules striking out Mr. Steen's notice of civil claim and dismissing his action."
In Para [9] :..." the judge found Mr. Steen had filed his action in the incorrect registry and as such he had not complied with the Small Claims Rules."
"the judge found"..... Not, 'Let's have a scrutinizing look at the Rules for filing a claim in BC. ' NOT, 'I noted with interest in your Affidavit materials your Exhibit in which the very office of the AG took a man to court (after some 12 year lapse), using the very 'B' (or) Rule for filing (as you had used) and WON!
Again, and I repeat (as I see it): This is NOT about Justice; it is about keeping SRL riffraff, like myself and hundreds of thousands of other upright CANADIAN CITIZENS - looking for ACTUAL justice, as applied by the very Rules that are in place (wanting as they are) - OUT of the system.
GOD forbid we give these diehards even a modicum of acknowledgment. Since daring to question the System for all its inherent discrepant allowances is:
"An abuse of the Court's process."
May they - the most upright noble and honourable, forever impartial and thoroughly just lords and ladies of our higher and SUPREME COURT of this exemplary democratic land - sleep and rest in their conscionable peace!
"S. R. L. E.J.Steen."
================
I leave you with the following Government provided text:
I leave you with the following Government provided text:
Furthermore, that mistake must have had such a significant effect on the outcome of the case that it led to the incorrect decision being made.
Because the appeal court does not hear evidence from witnesses, it is very difficult for the appellant to convince the appeal judges that the previous decision-maker reached the wrong conclusion about the facts of the case."
================
So, in this, my very last stand, I will seek to discover whether these THREE, DIFFERING, and purportedly IMPARTIAL, seasoned individuals, presently representing a more LIBERAL and JUST government, upon interpreting the laws as defined - which they should be thoroughly and intimately familiar with - will these THREE MOST HONOURABLE SOULS side with the Rules of Law, or reiterate diplomatic gobbledygook rhetoric to side with their legal counterpart, the most honourable BROTHER justice Gaul?
After all these thousands of lonely hours spent seeking Justice - trying to make sense of Rules as written, am I in the final analysis, in FACT, just a silly old fart? Some nutsy Don Quixote?
Costly as it will be, I will pursue this LAST and FINAL STAND!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment